James Knox Polk

State of the Union 1845 - 8 December 1845

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives:

It is to me a source of unaffected satisfaction to meet
the representatives of the States and the people in
Congress assembled, as it will be to receive the aid of
their combined wisdom in the administration of public
affairs. In performing for the first time the duty
imposed on me by the Constitution of giving to you
information of the state of the Union and recommending to
your consideration such measures as in my judgment are
necessary and expedient, I am happy that I can
congratulate you on the continued prosperity of our
country. Under the blessings of Divine Providence and the
benign influence of our free institutions, it stands
before the world a spectacle of national happiness.

With our unexampled advancement in all the elements of
national greatness, the affection of the people is
confirmed for the Union of the States and for the
doctrines of popular liberty which lie at the foundation
of our Government.

It becomes us in humility to make our devout
acknowledgments to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for
the inestimable civil and religious blessings with which
we are favored.

In calling the attention of Congress to our relations
with foreign powers, I am gratified to be able to state
that though with some of them there have existed since
your last session serious causes of irritation and
misunderstanding, yet no actual hostilities have taken
place. Adopting the maxim in the conduct of our foreign
affairs "to ask nothing that is not right and submit to
nothing that is wrong," it has been my anxious desire to
preserve peace with all nations, but at the same time to
be prepared to resist aggression and maintain all our
just rights.

In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress "for
annexing Texas to the United States," my predecessor, on
the 3d day of March, 1845, elected to submit the first
and second sections of that resolution to the Republic of
Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for
her admission as a State into our Union. This election I
approved, and accordingly the charge d'affaires of the
United States in Texas, under instructions of the 10th of
March, 1845, presented these sections of the resolution
for the acceptance of that Republic. The executive
government, the Congress, and the people of Texas in
convention have successively complied with all the terms
and conditions of the joint resolution. A constitution
for the government of the State of Texas, formed by a
convention of deputies, is herewith laid before Congress.
It is well known, also, that the people of Texas at the
polls have accepted the terms of annexation and ratified
the constitution. I communicate to Congress the
correspondence between the Secretary of State and our
charge d'affaires in Texas, and also the correspondence
of the latter with the authorities of Texas, together
with the official documents transmitted by him to his own
Government. The terms of annexation which were offered by
the United States having been accepted by Texas, the
public faith of both parties is solemnly pledged to the
compact of their union. Nothing remains to consummate the
event but the passage of an act by Congress to admit the
State of Texas into the Union upon an equal footing with
the original States. Strong reasons exist why this should
be done at an early period of the session. It will be
observed that by the constitution of Texas the existing
government is only continued temporarily till Congress
can act, and that the third Monday of the present month
is the day appointed for holding the first general
election. On that day a governor, a lieutenant-governor,
and both branches of the legislature will be chosen by
the people. The President of Texas is required,
immediately after the receipt of official information
that the new State has been admitted into our Union by
Congress, to convene the legislature, and upon its
meeting the existing government will be superseded and
the State government organized. Questions deeply
interesting to Texas, in common with the other States,
the extension of our revenue laws and judicial system
over her people and territory, as well as measures of a
local character, will claim the early attention of
Congress, and therefore upon every principle of
republican government she ought to be represented in that
body without unnecessary delay. I can not too earnestly
recommend prompt action on this important subject. As
soon as the act to admit Texas as a State shall be passed
the union of the two Republics will be consummated by
their own voluntary consent.

This accession to our territory has been a bloodless
achievement. No arm of force has been raised to produce
the result. The sword has had no part in the victory. We
have not sought to extend our territorial possessions by
conquest, or our republican institutions over a reluctant
people. It was the deliberate homage of each people to
the great principle of our federative union. If we
consider the extent of territory involved in the
annexation, its prospective influence on America, the
means by which it has been accomplished, springing purely
from the choice of the people themselves to share the
blessings of our union, the history of the world may be
challenged to furnish a parallel. The jurisdiction of the
United States, which at the formation of the Federal
Constitution was bounded by the St. Marys on the
Atlantic, has passed the capes of Florida and been
peacefully extended to the Del Norte. In contemplating
the grandeur of this event it is not to be forgotten that
the result was achieved in despite of the diplomatic
interference of European monarchies. Even France, the
country which had been our ancient ally, the country
which has a common interest with us in maintaining the
freedom of the seas, the country which, by the cession of
Louisiana, first opened to us access to the Gulf of
Mexico, the country with which we have been every year
drawing more and more closely the bonds of successful
commerce, most unexpectedly, and to our unfeigned regret,
took part in an effort to prevent annexation and to
impose on Texas, as a condition of the recognition of her
independence by Mexico, that she would never join herself
to the United States. We may rejoice that the tranquil
and pervading influence of the American principle of
self-government was sufficient to defeat the purposes of
British and French interference, and that the almost
unanimous voice of the people of Texas has given to that
interference a peaceful and effective rebuke. From this
example European Governments may learn how vain
diplomatic arts and intrigues must ever prove upon this
continent against that system of self-government which
seems natural to our soil, and which will ever resist
foreign interference.

Toward Texas I do not doubt that a liberal and generous
spirit will actuate Congress in all that concerns her
interests and prosperity, and that she will never have
cause to regret that she has united her "lone star" to
our glorious constellation.

I regret to inform you that our relations with Mexico
since your last session have not been of the amicable
character which it is our desire to cultivate with all
foreign nations. On the 6th day of March last the Mexican
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the
United States made a formal protest in the name of his
Government against the joint resolution passed by
Congress "for the annexation of Texas to the United
States," which he chose to regard as a violation of the
rights of Mexico, and in consequence of it he demanded
his passports. He was informed that the Government of the
United States did not consider this joint resolution as a
violation of any of the rights of Mexico, or that it
afforded any just cause of offense to his Government;
that the Republic of Texas was an independent power,
owing no allegiance to Mexico and constituting no part of
her territory or rightful sovereignty and jurisdiction.
He was also assured that it was the sincere desire of
this Government to maintain with that of Mexico relations
of peace and good understanding. That functionary,
however, notwithstanding these representations and
assurances, abruptly terminated his mission and shortly
afterwards left the country. Our envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary to Mexico was refused all
official intercourse with that Government, and, after
remaining several months, by the permission of his own
Government he returned to the United States. Thus, by the
acts of Mexico, all diplomatic intercourse between the
two countries was suspended.

Since that time Mexico has until recently occupied an
attitude of hostility toward the United States--has been
marshaling and organizing armies, issuing proclamations,
and avowing the intention to make war on the United
States, either by an open declaration or by invading
Texas. Both the Congress and convention of the people of
Texas invited this Government to send an army into that
territory to protect and defend them against the menaced
attack. The moment the terms of annexation offered by the
United States were accepted by Texas the latter became so
far a part of our own country as to make it our duty to
afford such protection and defense. I therefore deemed it
proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong
squadron to the coasts of Mexico and to concentrate an
efficient military force on the western frontier of
Texas. Our Army was ordered to take position in the
country between the Nueces and the Del Norte, and to
repel any invasion of the Texan territory which might be
attempted by the Mexican forces. Our squadron in the Gulf
was ordered to cooperate with the Army. But though our
Army and Navy were placed in a position to defend our own
and the rights of Texas, they were ordered to commit no
act of hostility against Mexico unless she declared war
or was herself the aggressor by striking the first blow.
The result has been that Mexico has made no aggressive
movement, and our military and naval commanders have
executed their orders with such discretion that the peace
of the two Republics has not been disturbed. Texas had
declared her independence and maintained it by her arms
for more than nine years. She has had an organized
government in successful operation during that period.
Her separate existence as an independent state had been
recognized by the United States and the principal powers
of Europe. Treaties of commerce and navigation had been
concluded with her by different nations, and it had
become manifest to the whole world that any further
attempt on the part of Mexico to conquer her or overthrow
her Government would be vain. Even Mexico herself had
become satisfied of this fact, and whilst the question of
annexation was pending before the people of Texas during
the past summer the Government of Mexico, by a formal
act, agreed to recognize the independence of Texas on
condition that she would not annex herself to any other
power. The agreement to acknowledge the independence of
Texas, whether with or without this condition, is
conclusive against Mexico. The independence of Texas is a
fact conceded by Mexico herself, and she had no right or
authority to prescribe restrictions as to the form of
government which Texas might afterwards choose to assume.
But though Mexico can not complain of the United States
on account of the annexation of Texas, it is to be
regretted that serious causes of misunderstanding between
the two countries continue to exist, growing out of
unredressed injuries inflicted by the Mexican authorities
and people on the persons and property of citizens of the
United States through a long series of years. Mexico has
admitted these injuries, but has neglected and refused to
repair them. Such was the character of the wrongs and
such the insults repeatedly offered to American citizens
and the American flag by Mexico, in palpable violation of
the laws of nations and the treaty between the two
countries of the 5th of April, 1831, that they have been
repeatedly brought to the notice of Congress by my
predecessors. As early as the 6th of February, 1837, the
President of the United States declared in a message to
Congress that--

The length of time since some of the injuries have been
committed, the repeated and unavailing applications for
redress, the wanton character of some of the outrages
upon the property and persons of our citizens, upon the
officers and flag of the United States, independent of
recent insults to this Government and people by the late
extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify in the eyes
of all nations immediate war.

He did not, however, recommend an immediate resort to
this extreme measure, which, he declared, "should not be
used by just and generous nations, confiding in their
strength for injuries committed, if it can be honorably
avoided," but, in a spirit of forbearance, proposed that
another demand be made on Mexico for that redress which
had been so long and unjustly withheld. In these views
committees of the two Houses of Congress, in reports made
to their respective bodies, concurred. Since these
proceedings more than eight years have elapsed, during
which, in addition to the wrongs then complained of,
others of an aggravated character have been committed on
the persons and property of our citizens. A special agent
was sent to Mexico in the summer of 1838 with full
authority to make another and final demand for redress.
The demand was made; the Mexican Government promised to
repair the wrongs of which we complained, and after much
delay a treaty of indemnity with that view was concluded
between the two powers on the 11th of April, 1839, and
was duly ratified by both Governments. By this treaty a
joint commission was created to adjudicate and decide on
the claims of American citizens on the Government of
Mexico. The commission was organized at Washington on the
25th day of August, 1840. Their time was limited to
eighteen months, at the expiration of which they had
adjudicated and decided claims amounting to $2,026,139.68
in favor of citizens of the United States against the
Mexican Government, leaving a large amount of claims
undecided. Of the latter the American commissioners had
decided in favor of our citizens claims amounting to
$928,627.88, which were left unacted on by the umpire
authorized by the treaty. Still further claims, amounting
to between three and four millions of dollars, were
submitted to the board too late to be considered, and
were left undisposed of. The sum of $2,026,139.68,
decided by the board, was a liquidated and ascertained
debt due by Mexico to the claimants, and there was no
justifiable reason for delaying its payment according to
the terms of the treaty. It was not, however, paid.
Mexico applied for further indulgence, and, in that
spirit of liberality and forbearance which has ever
marked the policy of the United States toward that
Republic, the request was granted, and on the 30th of
January, 1843, a new treaty was concluded. By this treaty
it was provided that the interest due on the awards in
favor of claimants under the convention of the 11th of
April, 1839, should be paid out the 30th of April, 1843,
and that--

The principal of the said awards and the interest
accruing thereon shall be paid in five years, in equal
installments every three months, the said term of five
years to commence on the 30th day of April, 1843,
aforesaid.

The interest due on the 30th day of April, 1843, and the
three first of the twenty installments have been paid.
Seventeen of these installments, remain unpaid, seven of
which are now due.

The claims which were left undecided by the joint
commission, amounting to more than $3,000,000, together
with other claims for spoliations on the property of our
citizens, were subsequently presented to the Mexican
Government for payment, and were so far recognized that a
treaty providing for their examination and settlement by
a joint commission was concluded and signed at Mexico on
the 20th day of November, 1843. This treaty was ratified
by the United States with certain amendments to which no
just exception could have been taken, but it has not yet
received the ratification of the Mexican Government. In
the meantime our citizens, who suffered great losses--and
some of whom have been reduced from affluence to
bankruptcy--are without remedy unless their rights be
enforced by their Government. Such a continued and
unprovoked series of wrongs could never have been
tolerated by the United States had they been committed by
one of the principal nations of Europe. Mexico was,
however, a neighboring sister republic, which, following
our example, had achieved her independence, and for whose
success and prosperity all our sympathies were early
enlisted. The United States were the first to recognize
her independence and to receive her into the family of
nations, and have ever been desirous of cultivating with
her a good understanding. We have therefore borne the
repeated wrongs she has committed with great patience, in
the hope that a returning sense of justice would
ultimately guide her councils and that we might, if
possible, honorably avoid any hostile collision with her.
Without the previous authority of Congress the Executive
possessed no power to adopt or enforce adequate remedies
for the injuries we had suffered, or to do more than to
be prepared to repel the threatened aggression on the
part of Mexico. After our Army and Navy had remained on
the frontier and coasts of Mexico for many weeks without
any hostile movement on her part, though her menaces were
continued, I deemed it important to put an end, if
possible, to this state of things. With this view I
caused steps to be taken in the month of September last
to ascertain distinctly and in an authentic form what the
designs of the Mexican Government were--whether it was
their intention to declare war, or invade Texas, or
whether they were disposed to adjust and settle in an
amicable manner the pending differences between the two
countries. On the 9th of November an official answer was
received that the Mexican Government consented to renew
the diplomatic relations which had been suspended in
March last, and for that purpose were willing to accredit
a minister from the United States. With a sincere desire
to preserve peace and restore relations of good
understanding between the two Republics, I waived all
ceremony as to the manner of renewing diplomatic
intercourse between them, and, assuming the initiative,
on the 10th of November a distinguished citizen of
Louisiana was appointed envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary to Mexico, clothed with full powers to
adjust and definitively settle all pending differences
between the two countries, including those of boundary
between Mexico and the State of Texas. The minister
appointed has set out on his mission and is probably by
this time near the Mexican capital. He has been
instructed to bring the negotiation with which he is
charged to a conclusion at the earliest practicable
period, which it is expected will be in time to enable me
to communicate the result to Congress during the present
session. Until that result is known I forbear to
recommend to Congress such ulterior measures of redress
for the wrongs and injuries we have so long borne as it
would have been proper to make had no such negotiation
been instituted.

Congress appropriated at the last session the sum of
$275,000 for the payment of the April and July
installments of the Mexican indemnities for the year
1844:

Provided it shall be ascertained to the satisfaction of
the American Government that said installments have been
paid by the Mexican Government to the agent appointed by
the United States to receive the same in such manner as
to discharge all claim on the Mexican Government, and
said agent to be delinquent in remitting the money to the
United States.

The unsettled state of our relations with Mexico has
involved this subject in much mystery. The first
information in an authentic form from the agent of the
United States, appointed under the Administration of my
predecessor, was received at the State Department on the
9th of November last. This is contained in a letter,
dated the 17th of October, addressed by him to one of our
citizens then in Mexico with a view of having it
communicated to that Department. From this it appears
that the agent on the 20th of September, 1844, gave a
receipt to the treasury of Mexico for the amount of the
April and July installments of the indemnity. In the same
communication, however, he asserts that he had not
received a single dollar in cash, but that he holds such
securities as warranted him at the time in giving the
receipt, and entertains no doubt but that he will
eventually obtain the money. As these installments appear
never to have been actually paid by the Government of
Mexico to the agent, and as that Government has not,
therefore, been released so as to discharge the claim, I
do not feel myself warranted in directing payment to be
made to the claimants out of the Treasury without further
legislation. Their case is undoubtedly one of much
hardship, and it remains for Congress to decide whether
any, and what, relief ought to be granted to them. Our
minister to Mexico has been instructed to ascertain the
facts of the case from the Mexican Government in an
authentic and official form and report the result with as
little delay as possible.

My attention was early directed to the negotiation which
on the 4th of March last I found pending at Washington
between the United States and Great Britain on the
subject of the Oregon Territory. Three several attempts
had been previously made to settle the questions in
dispute between the two countries by negotiation upon the
principle of compromise, but each had proved
unsuccessful. These negotiations took place at London in
the years 1818, 1824, and 1826--the two first under the
Administration of Mr. Monroe and the last under that of
Mr. Adams. The negotiation of 1818, having failed to
accomplish its object, resulted in the convention of the
20th of October of that year.

By the third article of that convention it was--

Agreed that any country that may be claimed by either
party on the northwest coast of America westward of the
Stony Mountains shall, together with its harbors, bays,
and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the
same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the
date of the signature of the present convention to the
vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it
being well understood that this agreement is not to be
construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of
the two high contracting parties may have to any part of
the said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the
claims of any other power or state to any part of the
said country, the only object of the high contracting
parties in that respect being to prevent disputes and
differences amongst themselves.

The negotiation of 1824 was productive of no result, and
the convention of 1818 was left unchanged.

The negotiation of 1826, having also failed to effect an
adjustment by compromise, resulted in the convention of
August 6, 1827, by which it was agreed to continue in
force for an indefinite period the provisions of the
third article of the convention of the 20th of October,
1818; and it was further provided that--

It shall be competent, however, to either of the
contracting parties, in case either should think fit, at
any time after the 20th of October, 1828, on giving due
notice of twelve months to the other contracting party,
to annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall in
such case be accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated
after the expiration of the said term of notice.

In these attempts to adjust the controversy the parallel
of the forty-ninth degree of north latitude had been
offered by the United States to Great Britain, and in
those of 1818 and 1826, with a further concession of the
free navigation of the Columbia River south of that
latitude. The parallel of the forty-ninth degree from the
Rocky Mountains to its intersection with the
northeasternmost branch of the Columbia, and thence down
the channel of that river to the sea, had been offered by
Great Britain, with an addition of a small detached
territory north of the Columbia. Each of these
propositions had been rejected by the parties
respectively. In October, 1843, the envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary of the United States in
London was authorized to make a similar offer to those
made in 1818 and 1826. Thus stood the question when the
negotiation was shortly afterwards transferred to
Washington, and on the 23d of August, 1844, was formally
opened under the direction of my immediate predecessor.
Like all the previous negotiations, it was based upon
principles of "compromise," and the avowed purpose of the
parties was "to treat of the respective claims of the two
countries to the Oregon Territory with the view to
establish a permanent boundary between them westward of
the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean."

Accordingly, on the 26th of August, 1844, the British
plenipotentiary offered to divide the Oregon Territory by
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude from the Rocky
Mountains to the point of its intersection with the
northeasternmost branch of the Columbia River, and thence
down that river to the sea, leaving the free navigation
of the river to be enjoyed in common by both parties, the
country south of this line to belong to the United States
and that north of it to Great Britain. At the same time
he proposed in addition to yield to the United States a
detached territory north of the Columbia extending along
the Pacific and the Straits of Fuca from Bulfinchs
Harbor, inclusive, to Hoods Canal, and to make free to
the United States any port or ports south of latitude
49° which they might desire, either on the mainland
or on Quadra and Vancouvers Island. With the exception of
the free ports, this was the same offer which had been
made by the British and rejected by the American
Government in the negotiation of 1826. This proposition
was properly rejected by the American plenipotentiary on
the day it was submitted. This was the only proposition
of compromise offered by the British plenipotentiary. The
proposition on the part of Great Britain having been
rejected, the British plenipotentiary requested that a
proposal should be made by the United States for "an
equitable adjustment of the question." When I came into
office I found this to be the state of the negotiation.
Though entertaining the settled conviction that the
British pretensions of title could not be maintained to
any portion of the Oregon Territory upon any principle of
public law recognized by nations, yet in deference to
what had been done by my predecessors, and especially in
consideration that propositions of compromise had been
thrice made by two preceding Administrations to adjust
the question on the parallel of 49°, and in two of
them yielding to Great Britain the free navigation of the
Columbia, and that the pending negotiation had been
commenced on the basis of compromise, I deemed it to be
my duty not abruptly to break it off. In consideration,
too, that under the conventions of 1818 and 1827 the
citizens and subjects of the two powers held a joint
occupancy of the country, I was induced to make another
effort to settle this long-pending controversy in the
spirit of moderation which had given birth to the renewed
discussion. A proposition was accordingly made, which was
rejected by the British plenipotentiary, who, without
submitting any other proposition, suffered the
negotiation on his part to drop, expressing his trust
that the United States would offer what he saw fit to
call "some further proposal for the settlement of the
Oregon question more consistent with fairness and equity
and with the reasonable expectations of the British
Government." The proposition thus offered and rejected
repeated the offer of the parallel of 49° of north
latitude, which had been made by two preceding
Administrations, but without proposing to surrender to
Great Britain, as they had done, the free navigation of
the Columbia River. The right of any foreign power to the
free navigation of any of our rivers through the heart of
our country was one which I was unwilling to concede. It
also embraced a provision to make free to Great Britain
any port or ports on the cap of Quadra and Vancouvers
Island south of this parallel. Had this been a new
question, coming under discussion for the first time,
this proposition would not have been made. The
extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands of the
British Government and the rejection of the proposition
made in deference alone to what had been done by my
predecessors and the implied obligation which their acts
seemed to impose afford satisfactory evidence that no
compromise which the United States ought to accept can be
effected. With this conviction the proposition of
compromise which had been made and rejected was by my
direction subsequently withdrawn and our title to the
whole Oregon Territory asserted, and, as is believed,
maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments.

The civilized world will see in these proceedings a
spirit of liberal concession on the part of the United
States, and this Government will be relieved from all
responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the
controversy.

All attempts at compromise having failed, it becomes the
duty of Congress to consider what measures it may be
proper to adopt for the security and protection of our
citizens now inhabiting or who may hereafter inhabit
Oregon, and for the maintenance of our just title to that
Territory. In adopting measures for this purpose care
should be taken that nothing be done to violate the
stipulations of the convention of 1827, which is still in
force. The faith of treaties, in their letter and spirit,
has ever been, and, I trust, will ever be, scrupulously
observed by the United States. Under that convention a
year's notice is required to be given by either party to
the other before the joint occupancy shall terminate and
before either can rightfully assert or exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over any portion of the territory. This
notice it would, in my judgment, be proper to give, and I
recommend that provision be made by law for giving it
accordingly, and terminating in this manner the
convention of the 6th of August, 1827.

It will become proper for Congress to determine what
legislation they can in the meantime adopt without
violating this convention. Beyond all question the
protection of our laws and our jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, ought to be immediately extended over our
citizens in Oregon. They have had just cause to complain
of our long neglect in this particular, and have in
consequence been compelled for their own security and
protection to establish a provisional government for
themselves. Strong in their allegiance and ardent in
their attachment to the United States, they have been
thus cast upon their own resources. They are anxious that
our laws should be extended over them, and I recommend
that this be done by Congress with as little delay as
possible in the full extent to which the British
Parliament have proceeded in regard to British subjects
in that Territory by their act of July 2, 1821, "for
regulating the fur trade and establishing a criminal and
civil jurisdiction within certain parts of North
America." By this act Great Britain extended her laws and
jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over her subjects
engaged in the fur trade in that Territory. By it the
courts of the Province of Upper Canada were empowered to
take cognizance of causes civil and criminal. Justices of
the peace and other judicial officers were authorized to
be appointed in Oregon with power to execute all process
issuing from the courts of that Province, and to "sit and
hold courts of record for the trial of criminal offenses
and misdemeanors" not made the subject of capital
punishment, and also of civil cases where the cause of
action shall not "exceed in value the amount or sum of
lbs. 200."

Subsequent to the date of this act of Parliament a grant
was made from the "British Crown" to the Hudsons Bay
Company of the exclusive trade with the Indian tribes in
the Oregon Territory, subject to a reservation that it
shall not operate to the exclusion "of the subjects of
any foreign states who, under or by force of any
convention for the time being between us and such foreign
states, respectively, may be entitled to and shall be
engaged in the said trade." It is much to be regretted
that while under this act British subjects have enjoyed
the protection of British laws and British judicial
tribunals throughout the whole of Oregon, American
citizens in the same Territory have enjoyed no such
protection from their Government. At the same time, the
result illustrates the character of our people and their
institutions. In spite of this neglect they have
multiplied, and their number is rapidly increasing in
that Territory. They have made no appeal to arms, but
have peacefully fortified themselves in their new homes
by the adoption of republican institutions for
themselves, furnishing another example of the truth that
self-government is inherent in the American breast and
must prevail. It is due to them that they should be
embraced and protected by our laws. It is deemed
important that our laws regulating trade and intercourse
with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky Mountains should
be extended to such tribes as dwell beyond them. The
increasing emigration to Oregon and the care and
protection which is due from the Government to its
citizens in that distant region make it our duty, as it
is our interest, to cultivate amicable relations with the
Indian tribes of that Territory. For this purpose I
recommend that provision be made for establishing an
Indian agency and such subagencies as may be deemed
necessary beyond the Rocky Mountains.

For the protection of emigrants whilst on their way to
Oregon against the attacks of the Indian tribes occupying
the country through which they pass, I recommend that a
suitable number of stockades and blockhouse forts be
erected along the usual route between our frontier
settlements on the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, and
that an adequate force of mounted riflemen be raised to
guard and protect them on their journey. The immediate
adoption of these recommendations by Congress will not
violate the provisions of the existing treaty. It will be
doing nothing more for American citizens than British
laws have long since done for British subjects in the
same territory.

It requires several months to perform the voyage by sea
from the Atlantic States to Oregon, and although we have
a large number of whale ships in the Pacific, but few of
them afford an opportunity of interchanging intelligence
without great delay between our settlements in that
distant region and the United States. An overland mail is
believed to be entirely practicable, and the importance
of establishing such a mail at least once a month is
submitted to the favorable consideration of Congress.

It is submitted to the wisdom of Congress to determine
whether at their present session, and until after the
expiration of the year's notice, any other measures may
be adopted consistently with the convention of 1827 for
the security of our rights and the government and
protection of our citizens in Oregon. That it will
ultimately be wise and proper to make liberal grants of
land to the patriotic pioneers who amidst privations and
dangers lead the way through savage tribes inhabiting the
vast wilderness intervening between our frontier
settlements and Oregon, and who cultivate and are ever
ready to defend the soil, I am fully satisfied. To doubt
whether they will obtain such grants as soon as the
convention between the United States and Great Britain
shall have ceased to exist would be to doubt the justice
of Congress; but, pending the year's notice, it is worthy
of consideration whether a stipulation to this effect may
be made consistently with the spirit of that convention.

The recommendations which I have made as to the best
manner of securing our rights in Oregon are submitted to
Congress with great deference. Should they in their
wisdom devise any other mode better calculated to
accomplish the same object, it shall meet with my hearty
concurrence.

At the end of the year's notice, should Congress think it
proper to make provision for giving that notice, we shall
have reached a period when the national rights in Oregon
must either be abandoned or firmly maintained. That they
can not be abandoned without a sacrifice of both national
honor and interest is too clear to admit of doubt.

Oregon is a part of the North American continent, to
which, it is confidently affirmed, the title of the
United States is the best now in existence. For the
grounds on which that title rests I refer you to the
correspondence of the late and present Secretary of State
with the British plenipotentiary during the negotiation.
The British proposition of compromise, which would make
the Columbia the line south of 49°, with a trifling
addition of detached territory to the United States north
of that river, and would leave on the British side
two-thirds of the whole Oregon Territory, including the
free navigation of the Columbia and all the valuable
harbors on the Pacific, can never for a moment be
entertained by the United States without an abandonment
of their just and dear territorial rights, their own
self-respect, and the national honor. For the information
of Congress, I communicate herewith the correspondence
which took place between the two Governments during the
late negotiation.

The rapid extension of our settlements over our
territories heretofore unoccupied, the addition of new
States to our Confederacy, the expansion of free
principles, and our rising greatness as a nation are
attracting the attention of the powers of Europe, and
lately the doctrine has been broached in some of them of
a "balance of power" on this continent to check our
advancement. The United States, sincerely desirous of
preserving relations of good understanding with all
nations, can not in silence permit any European
interference on the North American continent, and should
any such interference be attempted will be ready to
resist it at any and all hazards.

It is well known to the American people and to all
nations that this Government has never interfered with
the relations subsisting between other governments. We
have never made ourselves parties to their wars or their
alliances; we have not sought their territories by
conquest; we have not mingled with parties in their
domestic struggles; and believing our own form of
government to be the best, we have never attempted to
propagate it by intrigues, by diplomacy, or by force. We
may claim on this continent a like exemption from
European interference. The nations of America are equally
sovereign and independent with those of Europe. They
possess the same rights, independent of all foreign
interposition, to make war, to conclude peace, and to
regulate their internal affairs. The people of the United
States can not, therefore, view with indifference
attempts of European powers to interfere with the
independent action of the nations on this continent. The
American system of government is entirely different from
that of Europe. Jealousy among the different sovereigns
of Europe, lest any one of them might become too powerful
for the rest, has caused them anxiously to desire the
establishment of what they term the "balance of power."
It can not be permitted to have any application on the
North American continent, and especially to the United
States. We must ever maintain the principle that the
people of this continent alone have the right to decide
their own destiny. Should any portion of them,
constituting an independent state, propose to unite
themselves with our Confederacy, this will be a question
for them and us to determine without any foreign
interposition. We can never consent that European powers
shall interfere to prevent such a union because it might
disturb the "balance of power" which they may desire to
maintain upon this continent. Near a quarter of a century
ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world,
in the annual message of one of my predecessors, that--

The American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are
henceforth not to be considered as subjects for
colonization by any European powers.

This principle will apply with greatly increased force
should any European power attempt to establish any new
colony in North America. In the existing circumstances of
the world the present is deemed a proper occasion to
reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe
and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and
sound policy. The reassertion of this principle,
especially in reference to North America, is at this day
but the promulgation of a policy which no European power
should cherish the disposition to resist. Existing rights
of every European nation should be respected, but it is
due alike to our safety and our interests that the
efficient protection of our laws should be extended over
our whole territorial limits, and that it should be
distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy
that no future European colony or dominion shall with our
consent be planted or established on any part of the
North American continent.

A question has recently arisen under the tenth article of
the subsisting treaty between the United States and
Prussia. By this article the consuls of the two countries
have the right to sit as judges and arbitrators "in such
differences as may arise between the captains and crews
of the vessels belonging to the nation whose interests
are committed to their charge without the interference of
the local authorities, unless the conduct of the crews or
of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity
of the country, or the said consuls should require their
assistance to cause their decisions to be carried into
effect or supported."

The Prussian consul at New Bedford in June, 1844, applied
to Mr. Justice Story to carry into effect a decision made
by him between the captain and crew of the Prussian ship
Borussia, but the request was refused on the ground that
without previous legislation by Congress the judiciary
did not possess the power to give effect to this article
of the treaty. The Prussian Government, through their
minister here, have complained of this violation of the
treaty, and have asked the Government of the United
States to adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar
violations hereafter. Good faith to Prussia, as well as
to other nations with whom we have similar treaty
stipulations, requires that these should be faithfully
observed. I have deemed it proper, therefore, to lay the
subject before Congress and to recommend such legislation
as may be necessary to give effect to these treaty
obligations.

By virtue of an arrangement made between the Spanish
Government and that of the United States in December,
1831, American vessels, since the 29th of April, 1832,
have been admitted to entry in the ports of Spain,
including those of the Balearic and Canary islands, on
payment of the same tonnage duty of 5 cents per ton, as
though they had been Spanish vessels; and this whether
our vessels arrive in Spain directly from the United
States or indirectly from any other country. When
Congress, by the act of 13th July, 1832, gave effect to
this arrangement between the two Governments, they
confined the reduction of tonnage duty merely to Spanish
vessels "coming from a port in Spain," leaving the former
discriminating duty to remain against such vessels coming
from a port in any other country. It is manifestly unjust
that whilst American vessels arriving in the ports of
Spain from other countries pay no more duty than Spanish
vessels, Spanish vessels arriving in the ports of the
United States from other countries should be subjected to
heavy discriminating tonnage duties. This is neither
equality nor reciprocity, and is in violation of the
arrangement concluded in December, 1831, between the two
countries. The Spanish Government have made repeated and
earnest remonstrances against this inequality, and the
favorable attention of Congress has been several times
invoked to the subject by my predecessors. I recommend,
as an act of justice to Spain, that this inequality be
removed by Congress and that the discriminating duties
which have been levied under the act of the 13th of July,
1832, on Spanish vessels coming to the United States from
any other foreign country be refunded. This
recommendation does not embrace Spanish vessels arriving
in the United States from Cuba and Porto Rico, which will
still remain subject to the provisions of the act of June
30, 1834, concerning tonnage duty on such vessels. By the
act of the 14th of July, 1832, coffee was exempted from
duty altogether. This exemption was universal, without
reference to the country where it was produced or the
national character of the vessel in which it was
imported. By the tariff act of the 30th of August, 1842,
this exemption from duty was restricted to coffee
imported in American vessels from the place of its
production, whilst coffee imported under all other
circumstances was subjected to a duty of 20 per cent ad
valorem. Under this act and our existing treaty with the
King of the Netherlands Java coffee imported from the
European ports of that Kingdom into the United States,
whether in Dutch or American vessels, now pays this rate
of duty. The Government of the Netherlands complains that
such a discriminating duty should have been imposed on
coffee the production of one of its colonies, and which
is chiefly brought from Java to the ports of that Kingdom
and exported from thence to foreign countries. Our trade
with the Netherlands is highly beneficial to both
countries and our relations with them have ever been of
the most friendly character. Under all the circumstances
of the case, I recommend that this discrimination should
be abolished and that the coffee of Java imported from
the Netherlands be placed upon the same footing with that
imported directly from Brazil and other countries where
it is produced.

Under the eighth section of the tariff act of the 30th of
August, 1842, a duty of 15 cents per gallon was imposed
on port wine in casks, while on the red wines of several
other countries, when imported in casks, a duty of only 6
cents per gallon was imposed. This discrimination, so far
as regarded the port wine of Portugal, was deemed a
violation of our treaty with that power, which provides
that--

No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the
importation into the United States of America of any
article the growth, produce, or manufacture of the
Kingdom and possessions of Portugal than such as are or
shall be payable on the like article being the growth,
produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country.

Accordingly, to give effect to the treaty as well as to
the intention of Congress, expressed in a proviso to the
tariff act itself, that nothing therein contained should
be so construed as to interfere with subsisting treaties
with foreign nations, a Treasury circular was issued on
the 16th of July, 1844, which, among other things,
declared the duty on the port wine of Portugal, in casks,
under the existing laws and treaty to be 6 cents per
gallon, and directed that the excess of duties which had
been collected on such wine should be refunded. By virtue
of another clause in the same section of the act it is
provided that all imitations of port or any other wines
"shall be subject to the duty provided for the genuine
article." Imitations of port wine, the production of
France, are imported to some extent into the United
States, and the Government of that country now claims
that under a correct construction of the act these
imitations ought not to pay a higher duty than that
imposed upon the original port wine of Portugal. It
appears to me to be unequal and unjust that French
imitations of port wine should be subjected to a duty of
15 cents, while the more valuable article from Portugal
should pay a duty of 6 cents only per gallon. I therefore
recommend to Congress such legislation as may be
necessary to correct the inequality.

The late President, in his annual message of December
last, recommended an appropriation to satisfy the claims
of the Texan Government against the United States, which
had been previously adjusted so far as the powers of the
Executive extend. These claims arose out of the act of
disarming a body of Texan troops under the command of
Major Snively by an officer in the service of the United
States, acting under the orders of our Government, and
the forcible entry into the custom-house at Bryarlys
Landing, on Red River, by certain citizens of the United
States and taking away therefrom the goods seized by the
collector of the customs as forfeited under the laws of
Texas. This was a liquidated debt ascertained to be due
to Texas when an independent state. Her acceptance of the
terms of annexation proposed by the United States does
not discharge or invalidate the claim. I recommend that
provision be made for its payment.

The commissioner appointed to China during the special
session of the Senate in March last shortly afterwards
set out on his mission in the United States ship
Columbus. On arriving at Rio de Janeiro on his passage
the state of his health had become so critical that by
the advice of his medical attendants he returned to the
United States early in the month of October last.
Commodore Biddle, commanding the East India Squadron,
proceeded on his voyage in the Columbus, and was charged
by the commissioner with the duty of exchanging with the
proper authorities the ratifications of the treaty lately
concluded with the Emperor of China. Since the return of
the commissioner to the United States his health has been
much improved, and he entertains the confident belief
that he will soon be able to proceed on his mission.

Unfortunately, differences continue to exist among some
of the nations of South America which, following our
example, have established their independence, while in
others internal dissensions prevail. It is natural that
our sympathies should be warmly enlisted for their
welfare; that we should desire that all controversies
between them should be amicably adjusted and their
Governments administered in a manner to protect the
rights and promote the prosperity of their people. It is
contrary, however, to our settled policy to interfere in
their controversies, whether external or internal.

I have thus adverted to all the subjects connected with
our foreign relations to which I deem it necessary to
call your attention. Our policy is not only peace with
all, but good will toward all the powers of the earth.
While we are just to all, we require that all shall be
just to us. Excepting the differences with Mexico and
Great Britain, our relations with all civilized nations
are of the most satisfactory character. It is hoped that
in this enlightened age these differences may be amicably
adjusted.

The Secretary of the Treasury in his annual report to
Congress will communicate a full statement of the
condition of our finances. The imports for the fiscal
year ending on the 30th of June last were of the value of
$117,254,564, of which the amount exported was
$15,346,830, leaving a balance of $101,907,734 for
domestic consumption. The exports for the same year were
of the value of $114,646,606, of which the amount of
domestic articles was $99,299,776. The receipts into the
Treasury during the same year were $29,769,133.56, of
which there were derived from customs $27,528,122.70,
from sales of public lands $2,077,022.30, and from
incidental and miscellaneous sources $163,998.56. The
expenditures for the same period were $29,968,206.98, of
which $8,588,157.62 were applied to the payment of the
public debt. The balance in the Treasury on the 1st of
July last was $7,658,306.22. The amount of the public
debt remaining unpaid on the 1st of October last was
$17,075,445.52. Further payments of the public debt would
have been made, in anticipation of the period of its
reimbursement under the authority conferred upon the
Secretary of the Treasury by the acts of July 21, 1841,
and of April 15, 1842, and March 3, 1843, had not the
unsettled state of our relations with Mexico menaced
hostile collision with that power. In view of such a
contingency it was deemed prudent to retain in the
Treasury an amount unusually large for ordinary purposes.

A few years ago our whole national debt growing out of
the Revolution and the War of 1812 with Great Britain was
extinguished, and we presented to the world the rare and
noble spectacle of a great and growing people who had
fully discharged every obligation. Since that time the
existing debt has been contracted, and, small as it is in
comparison with the similar burdens of most other
nations, it should be extinguished at the earliest
practicable period. Should the state of the country
permit, and especially if our foreign relations interpose
no obstacle, it is contemplated to apply all the moneys
in the Treasury as they accrue, beyond what is required
for the appropriations by Congress, to its liquidation. I
cherish the hope of soon being able to congratulate the
country on its recovering once more the lofty position
which it so recently occupied. Our country, which
exhibits to the world the benefits of self-government, in
developing all the sources of national prosperity owes to
mankind the permanent example of a nation free from the
blighting influence of a public debt.

The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of
making suitable modifications and reductions of the rates
of duty imposed by our present tariff laws. The object of
imposing duties on imports should be to raise revenue to
pay the necessary expenses of Government. Congress may
undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion,
discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different
articles, but the discriminations should be within the
revenue standard and be made with the view to raise money
for the support of Government.

It becomes important to understand distinctly what is
meant by a revenue standard the maximum of which should
not be exceeded in the rates of duty imposed. It is
conceded, and experience proves, that duties may be laid
so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the
importation of any given article, and thereby lessen or
destroy the revenue which at lower rates would be derived
from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue
rates and are not imposed to raise money for the support
of Government. If Congress levy a duty for revenue of 1
per cent on a given article, it will produce a given
amount of money to the Treasury and will incidentally and
necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount
of 1 per cent to the home manufacturer of a similar or
like article over the importer. If the duty be raised to
10 per cent, it will produce a greater amount of money
and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to
20, 25, or 30 per cent, and if as it is raised the
revenue derived from it is found to be increased, the
protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it
be raised to 31 per cent, and it is found that the
revenue produced at that rate is less than at 30 per
cent, it ceases to be a revenue duty. The precise point
in the ascending scale of duties at which it is
ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest
is the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the
bona fide purpose of collecting money for the support of
Government. To raise the duties higher than that point,
and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy
them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As long,
then, as Congress may gradually increase the rate of duty
on a given article, and the revenue is increased by such
increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard.
When they go beyond that point, and as they increase the
duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed; the act
ceases to have for its object the raising of money to
support Government, but is for protection merely. It does
not follow that Congress should levy the highest duty on
all articles of import which they will bear within the
revenue standard, for such rates would probably produce a
much larger amount than the economical administration of
the Government would require. Nor does it follow that the
duties on all articles should be at the same or a
horizontal rate. Some articles will bear a much higher
revenue duty than others. Below the maximum of the
revenue standard Congress may and ought to discriminate
in the rates imposed, taking care so to adjust them on
different articles as to produce in the aggregate the
amount which, when added to the proceeds of the sales of
public lands, may be needed to pay the economical
expenses of the Government.

In levying a tariff of duties Congress exercise the
taxing power, and for purposes of revenue may select the
objects of taxation. They may exempt certain articles
altogether and permit their importation free of duty. On
others they may impose low duties. In these classes
should be embraced such articles of necessity as are in
general use, and especially such as are consumed by the
laborer and poor as well as by the wealthy citizen. Care
should be taken that all the great interests of the
country, including manufactures, agriculture, commerce,
navigation, and the mechanic arts, should, as far as may
be practicable, derive equal advantages from the
incidental protection which a just system of revenue
duties may afford. Taxation, direct or indirect, is a
burden, and it should be so imposed as to operate as
equally as may be on all classes in the proportion of
their ability to bear it. To make the taxing power an
actual benefit to one class necessarily increases the
burden of the others beyond their proportion, and would
be manifestly unjust. The terms "protection to domestic
industry" are of popular import, but they should apply
under a just system to all the various branches of
industry in our country. The farmer or planter who toils
yearly in his fields is engaged in "domestic industry,"
and is as much entitled to have his labor "protected" as
the manufacturer, the man of commerce, the navigator, or
the mechanic, who are engaged also in "domestic industry"
in their different pursuits. The joint labors of all
these classes constitute the aggregate of the "domestic
industry" of the nation, and they are equally entitled to
the nation's "protection." No one of them can justly
claim to be the exclusive recipient of "protection,"
which can only be afforded by increasing burdens on the
"domestic industry" of the others.

If these views be correct, it remains to inquire how far
the tariff act of 1842 is consistent with them. That many
of the provisions of that act are in violation of the
cardinal principles here laid down all must concede. The
rates of duty imposed by it on some articles are
prohibitory and on others so high as greatly to diminish
importations and to produce a less amount of revenue than
would be derived from lower rates. They operate as
"protection merely" to one branch of "domestic industry"
by taxing other branches.

By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and false
values, and by the imposition of specific duties the
injustice and inequality of the act of 1842 in its
practical operations on different classes and pursuits
are seen and felt. Many of the oppressive duties imposed
by it under the operation of these principles range from
1 per cent to more than 200 per cent. They are
prohibitory on some articles and partially so on others,
and bear most heavily on articles of common necessity and
but lightly on articles of luxury. It is so framed that
much the greatest burden which it imposes is thrown on
labor and the poorer classes, who are least able to bear
it, while it protects capital and exempts the rich from
paying their just proportion of the taxation required for
the support of Government. While it protects the capital
of the wealthy manufacturer and increases his profits, it
does not benefit the operatives or laborers in his
employment, whose wages have not been increased by it.
Articles of prime necessity or of coarse quality and low
price, used by the masses of the people, are in many
instances subjected by it to heavy taxes, while articles
of finer quality and higher price, or of luxury, which
can be used only by the opulent, are lightly taxed. It
imposes heavy and unjust burdens on the farmer, the
planter, the commercial man, and those of all other
pursuits except the capitalist who has made his
investments in manufactures. All the great interests of
the country are not as nearly as may be practicable
equally protected by it.

The Government in theory knows no distinction of persons
or classes, and should not bestow upon some favors and
privileges which all others may not enjoy. It was the
purpose of its illustrious founders to base the
institutions which they reared upon the great and
unchanging principles of justice and equity, conscious
that if administered in the spirit in which they were
conceived they would be felt only by the benefits which
they diffused, and would secure for themselves a defense
in the hearts of the people more powerful than standing
armies and all the means and appliances invented to
sustain governments founded in injustice and oppression.

The well-known fact that the tariff act of 1842 was
passed by a majority of one vote in the Senate and two in
the House of Representatives, and that some of those who
felt themselves constrained, under the peculiar
circumstances existing at the time, to vote in its favor,
proclaimed its defects and expressed their determination
to aid in its modification on the first opportunity,
affords strong and conclusive evidence that it was not
intended to be permanent, and of the expediency and
necessity of its thorough revision.

In recommending to Congress a reduction of the present
rates of duty and a revision and modification of the act
of 1842, I am far from entertaining opinions unfriendly
to the manufacturers. On the contrary, I desire to see
them prosperous as far as they can be so without imposing
unequal burdens on other interests. The advantage under
any system of indirect taxation, even within the revenue
standard, must be in favor of the manufacturing interest,
and of this no other interest will complain.

I recommend to Congress the abolition of the minimum
principle, or assumed, arbitrary, and false values, and
of specific duties, and the substitution in their place
of ad valorem duties as the fairest and most equitable
indirect tax which can be imposed. By the ad valorem
principle all articles are taxed according to their cost
or value, and those which are of inferior quality or of
small cost bear only the just proportion of the tax with
those which are of superior quality or greater cost. The
articles consumed by all are taxed at the same rate. A
system of ad valorem revenue duties, with proper
discriminations and proper guards against frauds in
collecting them, it is not doubted will afford ample
incidental advantages to the manufacturers and enable
them to derive as great profits as can be derived from
any other regular business. It is believed that such a
system strictly within the revenue standard will place
the manufacturing interests on a stable footing and inure
to their permanent advantage, while it will as nearly as
may be practicable extend to all the great interests of
the country the incidental protection which can be
afforded by our revenue laws. Such a system, when once
firmly established, would be permanent, and not be
subject to the constant complaints, agitations, and
changes which must ever occur when duties are not laid
for revenue, but for the "protection merely" of a favored
interest.

In the deliberations of Congress on this subject it is
hoped that a spirit of mutual concession and compromise
between conflicting interests may prevail, and that the
result of their labors may be crowned with the happiest
consequences.

By the Constitution of the United States it is provided
that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of appropriations made by law." A public
treasury was undoubtedly contemplated and intended to be
created, in which the public money should be kept from
the period of collection until needed for public uses. In
the collection and disbursement of the public money no
agencies have ever been employed by law except such as
were appointed by the Government, directly responsible to
it and under its control. The safe-keeping of the public
money should be confided to a public treasury created by
law and under like responsibility and control. It is not
to be imagined that the framers of the Constitution could
have intended that a treasury should be created as a
place of deposit and safe-keeping of the public money
which was irresponsible to the Government. The first
Congress under the Constitution, by the act of the 2d of
September, 1789, "to establish the Treasury Department,"
provided for the appointment of a Treasurer, and made it
his duty "to receive and keep the moneys of the United
States" and "at all times to submit to the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Comptroller, or either of them, the
inspection of the moneys in his hands."

That banks, national or State, could not have been
intended to be used as a substitute for the Treasury
spoken of in the Constitution as keepers of the public
money is manifest from the fact that at that time there
was no national bank, and but three or four State banks,
of limited Capital, existed in the country. Their
employment as depositories was at first resorted to to a
limited extent, but with no avowed intention of
continuing them permanently in place of the Treasury of
the Constitution. When they were afterwards from time to
time employed, it was from motives of supposed
convenience. Our experience has shown that when banking
corporations have been the keepers of the public money,
and been thereby made in effect the Treasury, the
Government can have no guaranty that it can command the
use of its own money for public purposes. The late Bank
of the United States proved to be faithless. The State
banks which were afterwards employed were faithless. But
a few years ago, with millions of public money in their
keeping, the Government was brought almost to bankruptcy
and the public credit seriously impaired because of their
inability or indisposition to pay on demand to the public
creditors in the only currency recognized by the
Constitution. Their failure occurred in a period of
peace, and great inconvenience and loss were suffered by
the public from it. Had the country been involved in a
foreign war, that inconvenience and loss would have been
much greater, and might have resulted in extreme public
calamity. The public money should not be mingled with the
private funds of banks or individuals or be used for
private purposes. When it is placed in banks for
safe-keeping, it is in effect loaned to them without
interest, and is loaned by them upon interest to the
borrowers from them. The public money is converted into
banking capital, and is used and loaned out for the
private profit of bank stockholders, and when called for,
as was the case in 1837, it may be in the pockets of the
borrowers from the banks instead of being in the public
Treasury contemplated by the Constitution. The framers of
the Constitution could never have intended that the money
paid into the Treasury should be thus converted to
private use and placed beyond the control of the
Government.

Banks which hold the public money are often tempted by a
desire of gain to extend their loans, increase their
circulation, and thus stimulate, if not produce, a spirit
of speculation and extravagance which sooner or later
must result in ruin to thousands. If the public money be
not permitted to be thus used, but be kept in the
Treasure and paid out to the public creditors in gold and
silver, the temptation afforded by its deposit with banks
to an undue expansion of their business would be checked,
while the amount of the constitutional currency left in
circulation would be enlarged by its employment in the
public collections and disbursements, and the banks
themselves would in consequence be found in a safer and
sounder condition. At present State banks are employed as
depositories, but without adequate regulation of law
whereby the public money can be secured against the
casualties and excesses, revulsions, suspensions, and
defalcations to which from overissues, overtrading, an
inordinate desire for gain, or other causes they are
constantly exposed. The Secretary of the Treasury has in
all cases when it was practicable taken collateral
security for the amount which they hold, by the pledge of
stocks of the United States or such of the States as were
in good credit. Some of the deposit banks have given this
description of security and others have declined to do
so.

Entertaining the opinion that "the separation of the
moneys of the Government from banking institutions is
indispensable for the safety of the funds of the
Government and the rights of the people," I recommend to
Congress that provision be made by law for such
separation, and that a constitutional treasury be created
for the safe-keeping of the public money. The
constitutional treasury recommended is designed as a
secure depository for the public money, without any power
to make loans or discounts or to issue any paper whatever
as a currency or circulation. I can not doubt that such a
treasury as was contemplated by the Constitution should
be independent of all banking corporations. The money of
the people should be kept in the Treasury of the people
created by law, and be in the custody of agents of the
people chosen by themselves according to the forms of the
Constitution--agents who are directly responsible to the
Government, who are under adequate bonds and oaths, and
who are subject to severe punishments for any
embezzlement, private use, or misapplication of the
public funds, and for any failure in other respects to
perform their duties. To say that the people or their
Government are incompetent or not to be trusted with the
custody of their own money in their own Treasury,
provided by themselves, but must rely on the presidents,
cashiers, and stockholders of banking corporations, not
appointed by them nor responsible to them, would be to
concede that they are incompetent for self-government.

In recommending the establishment of a constitutional
treasury in which the public money shall be kept, I
desire that adequate provision be made by law for its
safety and that all Executive discretion or control over
it shall be removed, except such as may be necessary in
directing its disbursement in pursuance of appropriations
made by law.

Under our present land system, limiting the minimum price
at which the public lands can be entered to $1.25 per
acre, large quantities of lands of inferior quality
remain unsold because they will not command that price.
From the records of the General Land Office it appears
that of the public lands remaining unsold in the several
States and Territories in which they are situated,
39,105,577 acres have been in the market subject to entry
more than twenty years, 49,638,644 acres for more than
fifteen years, 73,074,600 acres for more than ten years,
and 106,176,961 acres for more than five years. Much the
largest portion of these lands will continue to be
unsalable at the minimum price at which they are
permitted to be sold so long as large territories of
lands from which the more valuable portions have not been
selected are annually brought into market by the
Government. With the view to the sale and settlement of
these inferior lands, I recommend that the price be
graduated and reduced below the present minimum rate,
confining the sales at the reduced prices to settlers and
cultivators, in limited quantities. If graduated and
reduced in price for a limited term to $1 per acre, and
after the expiration of that period for a second and
third term to lower rates, a large portion of these lands
would be purchased, and many worthy citizens who are
unable to pay higher rates could purchase homes for
themselves and their families. By adopting the policy of
graduation and reduction of price these inferior lands
will be sold for their real value, while the States in
which they lie will be freed from the inconvenience, if
not injustice, to which they are subjected in consequence
of the United States continuing to own large quantities
of the public lands within their borders not liable to
taxation for the support of their local governments.

I recommend the continuance of the policy of granting
preemptions in its most liberal extent to all those who
have settled or may hereafter settle on the public lands,
whether surveyed or unsurveyed, to which the Indian title
may have been extinguished at the time of settlement. It
has been found by experience that in consequence of
combinations of purchasers and other causes a very small
quantity of the public lands, when sold at public
auction, commands a higher price than the minimum rates
established by law. The settlers on the public lands are,
however, but rarely able to secure their homes and
improvements at the public sales at that rate, because
these combinations, by means of the capital they command
and their superior ability to purchase, render it
impossible for the settler to compete with them in the
market. By putting down all competition these
combinations of capitalists and speculators are usually
enabled to purchase the lands, including the improvements
of the settlers, at the minimum price of the Government,
and either turn them out of their homes or extort from
them, according to their ability to pay, double or
quadruple the amount paid for them to the Government. It
is to the enterprise and perseverance of the hardy
pioneers of the West, who penetrate the wilderness with
their families, suffer the dangers, the privations, and
hardships attending the settlement of a new country, and
prepare the way for the body of emigrants who in the
course of a few years usually follow them, that we are in
a great degree indebted for the rapid extension and
aggrandizement of our country.

Experience has proved that no portion of our population
are more patriotic than the hardy and brave men of the
frontier, or more ready to obey the call of their country
and to defend her rights and her honor whenever and by
whatever enemy assailed. They should be protected from
the grasping speculator and secured, at the minimum price
of the public lands, in the humble homes which they have
improved by their labor. With this end in view, all
vexatious or unnecessary restrictions imposed upon them
by the existing preemption laws should be repealed or
modified. It is the true policy of the Government to
afford facilities to its citizens to become the owners of
small portions of our vast public domain at low and
moderate rates.

The present system of managing the mineral lands of the
United States is believed to be radically defective. More
than 1,000,000 acres of the public lands, supposed to
contain lead and other minerals, have been reserved from
sale, and numerous leases upon them have been granted to
individuals upon a stipulated rent. The system of
granting leases has proved to be not only unprofitable to
the Government, but unsatisfactory to the citizens who
have gone upon the lands, and must, if continued, lay the
foundation of much future difficulty between the
Government and the lessees. According to the official
records, the amount of rents received by the Government
for the years 1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844 was $6,354.74,
while the expenses of the system during the same period,
including salaries of superintendents, agents, clerks,
and incidental expenses, were $26,111.11, the income
being less than one-fourth of the expenses. To this
pecuniary loss may be added the injury sustained by the
public in consequence of the destruction of timber and
the careless and wasteful manner of working the mines.
The system has given rise to much litigation between the
United States and individual citizens, producing
irritation and excitement in the mineral region, and
involving the Government in heavy additional
expenditures. It is believed that similar losses and
embarrassments will continue to occur while the present
System of leasing these lands remains unchanged. These
lands are now under the superintendence and care of the
War Department, with the ordinary duties of which they
have no proper or natural connection. I recommend the
repeal of the present system, and that these lands be
placed under the superintendence and management of the
General Land Office, as other public lands, and be
brought into market and sold upon such terms as Congress
in their wisdom may prescribe, reserving to the
Government an equitable percentage of the gross amount of
mineral product, and that the preemption principle be
extended to resident miners and settlers upon them at the
minimum price which may be established by Congress.

I refer you to the accompanying report of the Secretary
of War for information respecting the present situation
of the Army and its operations during the past year, the
state of our defenses, the condition of the public works,
and our relations with the various Indian tribes within
our limits or upon our borders. I invite your attention
to the suggestions contained in that report in relation
to these prominent objects of national interest. When
orders were given during the past summer for
concentrating a military force on the western frontier of
Texas, our troops were widely dispersed and in small
detachments, occupying posts remote from each other. The
prompt and expeditious manner in which an army embracing
more than half our peace establishment was drawn together
on an emergency so sudden reflects great credit on the
officers who were intrusted with the execution of these
orders, as well as upon the discipline of the Army
itself. To be in strength to protect and defend the
people and territory of Texas in the event Mexico should
commence hostilities or invade her territories with a
large army, which she threatened, I authorized the
general assigned to the command of the army of occupation
to make requisitions for additional forces from several
of the States nearest the Texan territory, and which
could most expeditiously furnish them, if in his opinion
a larger force than that under his command and the
auxiliary aid which under like circumstances he was
authorized to receive from Texas should be required. The
contingency upon which the exercise of this authority
depended has not occurred. The circumstances under which
two companies of State artillery from the city of New
Orleans were sent into Texas and mustered into the
service of the United States are fully stated in the
report of the Secretary of War. I recommend to Congress
that provision be made for the payment of these troops,
as well as a small number of Texan volunteers whom the
commanding general thought it necessary to receive or
muster into our service.

During the last summer the First Regiment of Dragoons
made extensive excursions through the Indian country on
our borders, a part of them advancing nearly to the
possessions of the Hudsons Bay Company in the north, and
a part as far as the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains
and the head waters of the tributary streams of the
Colorado of the West. The exhibition of this military
force among the Indian tribes in those distant regions
and the councils held with them by the commanders of the
expeditions, it is believed, will have a salutary
influence in restraining them from hostilities among
themselves and maintaining friendly relations between
them and the United States. An interesting account of one
of these excursions accompanies the report of the
Secretary of War. Under the directions of the War
Department Brevet Captain Fremont, of the Corps of
Topographical Engineers, has been employed since 1842 in
exploring the country west of the Mississippi and beyond
the Rocky Mountains. Two expeditions have already been
brought to a close, and the reports of that scientific
and enterprising officer have furnished much interesting
and valuable information. He is now engaged in a third
expedition, but it is not expected that this arduous
service will be completed in season to enable me to
communicate the result to Congress at the present
session.

Our relations with the Indian tribes are of a favorable
character. The policy of removing them to a country
designed for their permanent residence west of the
Mississippi, and without the limits of the organized
States and Territories, is better appreciated by them
than it was a few years ago, while education is now
attended to and the habits of civilized life are gaining
ground among them.

Serious difficulties of long standing continue to
distract the several parties into which the Cherokees are
unhappily divided. The efforts of the Government to
adjust the difficulties between them have heretofore
proved unsuccessful, and there remains no probability
that this desirable object can be accomplished without
the aid of further legislation by Congress. I will at an
early period of your session present the subject for your
consideration, accompanied with an exposition of the
complaints and claims of the several parties into which
the nation is divided, with a view to the adoption of
such measures by Congress as may enable the Executive to
do justice to them, respectively, and to put an end, if
possible, to the dissensions which have long prevailed
and still prevail among them.

I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Navy
for the present condition of that branch of the national
defense and for grave suggestions having for their object
the increase of its efficiency and a greater economy in
its management. During the past year the officers and men
have performed their duty in a satisfactory manner. The
orders which have been given have been executed with
promptness and fidelity. A larger force than has often
formed one squadron under our flag was readily
concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, and apparently
without unusual effort. It is especially to be observed
that notwithstanding the union of so considerable a
force, no act was committed that even the jealousy of an
irritated power could construe as an act of aggression,
and that the commander of the squadron and his officers,
in strict conformity with their instructions, holding
themselves ever ready for the most active duty, have
achieved the still purer glory of contributing to the
preservation of peace. It is believed that at all our
foreign stations the honor of our flag has been
maintained and that generally our ships of war have been
distinguished for their good discipline and order. I am
happy to add that the display of maritime force which was
required by the events of the summer has been made wholly
within the usual appropriations for the service of the
year, so that no additional appropriations are required.

The commerce of the United States, and with it the
navigating interests, have steadily and rapidly increased
since the organization of our Government, until, it is
believed, we are now second to but one power in the
world, and at no distant day we shall probably be
inferior to none. Exposed as they must be, it has been a
wise policy to afford to these important interests
protection with our ships of war distributed in the great
highways of trade throughout the world. For more than
thirty years appropriations have been made and annually
expended for the gradual increase of our naval forces. In
peace our Navy performs the important duty of protecting
our commerce, and in the event of war will be, as it has
been, a most efficient means of defense.

The successful use of steam navigation on the ocean has
been followed by the introduction of war steamers in
great and increasing numbers into the navies of the
principal maritime powers of the world. A due regard to
our own safety and to an efficient protection to our
large and increasing commerce demands a corresponding
increase on our part. No country has greater facilities
for the construction of vessels of this description than
ours, or can promise itself greater advantages from their
employment. They are admirably adapted to the protection
of our commerce, to the rapid transmission of
intelligence, and to the coast defense. In pursuance of
the wise policy of a gradual increase of our Navy, large
supplies of live-oak timber and other materials for
shipbuilding have been collected and are now under
shelter and in a state of good preservation, while iron
steamers can be built with great facility in various
parts of the Union. The use of iron as a material,
especially in the construction of steamers which can
enter with safety many of the harbors along our coast now
inaccessible to vessels of greater draft, and the
practicability of constructing them in the interior,
strongly recommend that liberal appropriations should be
made for this important object. Whatever may have been
our policy in the earlier stages of the Government, when
the nation was in its infancy, our shipping interests and
commerce comparatively small, our resources limited, our
population sparse and scarcely extending beyond the
limits of the original thirteen States, that policy must
be essentially different now that we have grown from
three to more than twenty millions of people, that our
commerce, carried in our own ships, is found in every
sea, and that our territorial boundaries and settlements
have been so greatly expanded. Neither our commerce nor
our long line of coast on the ocean and on the Lakes can
be successfully defended against foreign aggression by
means of fortifications alone. These are essential at
important commercial and military points, but our chief
reliance for this object must be on a well-organized,
efficient navy. The benefits resulting from such a navy
are not confined to the Atlantic States. The productions
of the interior which seek a market abroad are directly
dependent on the safety and freedom of our commerce. The
occupation of the Balize below New Orleans by a hostile
force would embarrass, if not stagnate, the whole export
trade of the Mississippi and affect the value of the
agricultural products of the entire valley of that mighty
river and its tributaries.

It has never been our policy to maintain large standing
armies in time of peace. They are contrary to the genius
of our free institutions, would impose heavy burdens on
the people and be dangerous to public liberty. Our
reliance for protection and defense on the land must be
mainly on our citizen soldiers, who will be ever ready,
as they ever have been ready in times past, to rush with
alacrity, at the call of their country, to her defense.
This description of force, however, can not defend our
coast, harbors, and inland seas, nor protect our commerce
on the ocean or the Lakes. These must be protected by our
Navy.

Considering an increased naval force, and especially of
steam vessels, corresponding with our growth and
importance as a nation, and proportioned to the increased
and increasing naval power of other nations, of vast
importance as regards our safety, and the great and
growing interests to be protected by it, I recommend the
subject to the favorable consideration of Congress.

The report of the Postmaster-General herewith
communicated contains a detailed statement of the
operations of his Department during the pass year. It
will be seen that the income from postages will fall
short of the expenditures for the year between $1,000,000
and $2,000,000. This deficiency has been caused by the
reduction of the rates of postage, which was made by the
act of the 3d of March last. No principle has been more
generally acquiesced in by the people than that this
Department should sustain itself by limiting its
expenditures to its income. Congress has never sought to
make it a source of revenue for general purposes except
for a short period during the last war with Great
Britain, nor should it ever become a charge on the
general Treasury. If Congress shall adhere to this
principle, as I think they ought, it will be necessary
either to curtail the present mail service so as to
reduce the expenditures, or so to modify the act of the
3d of March last as to improve its revenues. The
extension of the mail service and the additional
facilities which will be demanded by the rapid extension
and increase of population on our western frontier will
not admit of such curtailment as will materially reduce
the present expenditures. In the adjustment of the tariff
of postages the interests of the people demand that the
lowest rates be adopted which will produce the necessary
revenue to meet the expenditures of the Department. I
invite the attention of Congress to the suggestions of
the Postmaster-General on this subject, under the belief
that such a modification of the late law may be made as
will yield sufficient revenue without further calls on
the Treasury, and with very little change in the present
rates of postage. Proper measures have been taken in
pursuance of the act of the 3d of March last for the
establishment of lines of mail steamers between this and
foreign countries. The importance of this service
commends itself strongly to favorable consideration.

With the growth of our country the public business which
devolves on the heads of the several Executive
Departments has greatly increased. In some respects the
distribution of duties among them seems to be
incongruous, and many of these might be transferred from
one to another with advantage to the public interests. A
more auspicious time for the consideration of this
subject by Congress, with a view to system in the
organization of the several Departments and a more
appropriate division of the public business, will not
probably occur.

The most important duties of the State Department relate
to our foreign affairs. By the great enlargement of the
family of nations, the increase of our commerce, and the
corresponding extension of our consular system the
business of this Department has been greatly increased.
In its present organization many duties of a domestic
nature and consisting of details are devolved on the
Secretary of State, which do not appropriately belong to
the foreign department of the Government and may properly
be transferred to some other Department. One of these
grows out of the present state of the law concerning the
Patent Office, which a few years since was a subordinate
clerkship, but has become a distinct bureau of great
importance. With an excellent internal organization, it
is still connected with the State Department. In the
transaction of its business questions of much importance
to inventors and to the community frequently arise, which
by existing laws are referred for decision to a board of
which the Secretary of State is a member. These questions
are legal, and the connection which now exists between
the State Department and the Patent Office may with great
propriety and advantage be transferred to the
Attorney-General.

In his last annual message to Congress Mr. Madison
invited attention to a proper provision for the
Attorney-General as "an important improvement in the
executive establishment." This recommendation was
repeated by some of his successors. The official duties
of the Attorney-General have been much increased within a
few years, and his office has become one of great
importance. His duties may be still further increased
with advantage to the public interests. As an executive
officer his residence and constant attention at the seat
of Government are required. Legal questions involving
important principles and large amounts of public money
are constantly referred to him by the President and
Executive Departments for his examination and decision.
The public business under his official management before
the judiciary has been so augmented by the extension of
our territory and the acts of Congress authorizing suits
against the United States for large bodies of valuable
public lands as greatly to increase his labors and
responsibilities. I therefore recommend that the
Attorney-General be placed on the same footing with the
heads of the other Executive Departments, with such
subordinate officers provided by law for his Department
as may be required to discharge the additional duties
which have been or may be devolved upon him.

Congress possess the power of exclusive legislation over
the District of Columbia, and I commend the interests of
its inhabitants to your favorable consideration. The
people of this District have no legislative body of their
own, and must confide their local as well as their
general interests to representatives in whose election
they have no voice and over whose official conduct they
have no control. Each member of the National Legislature
should consider himself as their immediate
representative, and should be the more ready to give
attention to their interests and wants because he is not
responsible to them. I recommend that a liberal and
generous spirit may characterize your measures in
relation to them. I shall be ever disposed to show a
proper regard for their wishes and, within constitutional
limits, shall at all times cheerfully cooperate with you
for the advancement of their welfare.

I trust it may not be deemed inappropriate to the
occasion for me to dwell for a moment on the memory of
the most eminent citizen of our country who during the
summer that is gone by has descended to the tomb. The
enjoyment of contemplating, at the advanced age of near
fourscore years, the happy condition of his country
cheered the last hours of Andrew Jackson, who departed
this life in the tranquil hope of a blessed immortality.
His death was happy, as his life had been eminently
useful. He had an unfaltering confidence in the virtue
and capacity of the people and in the permanence of that
free Government which he had largely contributed to
establish and defend. His great deeds had secured to him
the affections of his fellow-citizens, and it was his
happiness to witness the growth and glory of his country,
which he loved so well. He departed amidst the
benedictions of millions of free-men. The nation paid its
tribute to his memory at his tomb. Coming generations
will learn from his example the love of country and the
rights of man. In his language on a similar occasion to
the present, "I now commend you, fellow-citizens, to the
guidance of Almighty God, with a full reliance on His
merciful providence for the maintenance of our free
institutions, and with an earnest supplication that
whatever errors it may be my lot to commit in discharging
the arduous duties which have devolved on me will find a
remedy in the harmony and wisdom of your counsels."